scholarly journals The efficacy of systemic antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malene Øen ◽  
Knut N. Leknes ◽  
Bodil Lund ◽  
Dagmar F. Bunæs

Abstract Background Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language. Results The literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed. Conclusion The use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors’ declaration on conflict of interest.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tala Raad ◽  
Elena George ◽  
Anne Griffin ◽  
Louise Larkin ◽  
Alexander Fraser ◽  
...  

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterised by swollen and painful joints. It is hypothesised that changes in lifestyle factors such as consuming a healthier diet may  reduce the severity of RA symptoms. People living with RA commonly make alterations to their dietary intake with the hope of improving their symptoms. This systematic review aims to discuss the effects of dietary interventions with and without omega-3 supplementation for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs) will be conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register) and CINAHL will be searched from inception without using date restrictions. Primary outcomes will include measures of disease activity, inflammation and quality of life among adults living with RA. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the methodological appraisal of the studies will be assessed independently by two different reviewers (TR and AG) using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for RCTs, and Risk-of-Bias In Non-Randomised Studies Tool for NRCTs. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Only publically available data from previously published studies will be used. The findings of this systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020147415 (11/02/2020).


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047344
Author(s):  
Qingwu Wu ◽  
Lianxiong Yuan ◽  
Huijun Qiu ◽  
Xinyue Wang ◽  
Xuekun Huang ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2 test and the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=−1.20; 95% CI −1.48 to −0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=−0.67; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=−15.62; 95% CI −19.79 to −11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=−1.84; 95% CI −2.43 to −1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207639.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e022348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye-Xuan Cao ◽  
Sha Li ◽  
Hui-Hui Liu ◽  
Jian-Jun Li

ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential effects of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibody (PCSK9-mAb) on high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) concentrations.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesPubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and recent conferences were searched from inception to May 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll randomised controlled trials that reported changes of hs-CRP were included.ResultsTen studies involving 4198 participants were identified. PCSK9-mAbs showed a slight efficacy in reducing hs-CRP (−0.04 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.17 to 0.01) which was not statistically different. The results did not altered when subgroup analyses were performed including PCSK9-mAb types (alirocumab: 0.12 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.18 to 0.43; evolocumab: 0.00 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.07; LY3015014: −0.48 mg/L, 95% CI: −1.28 to 0.32; RG7652: 0.35 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.26 to 0.96), treatment duration (≤12w: 0.00 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.07; >12w: −0.11 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.45 to −0.23), participant characteristics (familial hypercholesterolaemia: 0.00 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.07; non-familial hypercholesterolaemia: 0.07 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.12 to 0.26; mix: −0.48 mg/L, 95% CI: −1.28 to 0.32) and treatment methods (monotherapy: 0.00 mg/L, −0.08 to 0.07; combination therapy: −0.08 mg/L, −0.37 to 0.21). Meta-regression analyses suggested no significant linear correlation between baseline age (p=0.673), sex (p=0.645) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction (p=0.339).ConclusionsOur updated meta-analysis suggested that PCSK9-mAbs had no significant impact on circulating hs-CRP levels irrespective of PCSK9-mAb types, participant characteristics and treatment duration or methods.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 992-999
Author(s):  
Iria Dobarrio-Sanz ◽  
José Manuel Hernández-Padilla ◽  
María Mar López-Rodríguez ◽  
Cayetano Fernández-Sola ◽  
José Granero-Molina ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (11) ◽  
pp. 847-857
Author(s):  
Chaturaka Rodrigo ◽  
Ariaranee Gnanathasan

Abstract Adjunct therapy in snakebite may be lifesaving if administered appropriately or can be harmful if non-judicious use leads to avoidable delays in administering antivenom. This systematic review analyses the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of adjunct treatment administered with antivenom. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINAHL were searched for RCTs enrolling patients with snakebite envenoming where a treatment other than antivenom has been assessed for its efficacy within the last 25 y. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The interventions assessed were categorised as adjunct therapies (heparin or fresh frozen plasma) to reverse haemotoxicity (three studies), antibiotics to prevent local infections (three studies), steroids to reduce local swelling (one study), premedication (adrenaline, steroids and antihistamines, either alone or in combination) to reduce hypersensitivity reactions to antivenom (five studies) and other interventions (three studies). Apart from a beneficial effect of low-dose adrenaline (1:1000, 0.25 ml administered subcutaneously) in preventing antivenom-induced hypersensitivities (OR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93, two RCTs, 354 participants, moderate certainty evidence) in Sri Lanka, evidence for any other adjunct therapy is either non-existent or needs confirmation by larger better designed trials.


2019 ◽  
Vol 96 (1134) ◽  
pp. 197-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehdi Koushki ◽  
Mostafa Lakzaei ◽  
Hadi Khodabandehloo ◽  
Hossein Hosseini ◽  
Reza Meshkani ◽  
...  

BackgroundResveratrol is a naturally occurring polyphenol compound mainly found in grapes and red wine. The evidence has suggested that resveratrol has an antioxidant effect. However, the results are inconsistent and inconclusive. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of resveratrol supplementation on markers of oxidative stress.MethodsWe searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane library up to December 2018 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing resveratrol supplementation effects on oxidative markers. Heterogeneity, publication bias, risk of bias and subgroup analysis were analysed. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred ReportingItems for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA).ResultsMeta-analysis of data from 12 RCTs did not support significant effect of resveratrol supplementation on circulating levels of superoxide dismutase (SOD) (standardized mean difference (SMD) (1.12), (95% CI −0.91 to 3.1), p=0.28), catalase (CAT) (SMD (−0.07), (95% CI −1.4 to 1.3), p=0.92) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) (SMD (−0.76), (95% CI −2.56 to 1.04), p=0.40). Although, resveratrol supplementation increased significantly circulating total antioxidant capacity (TAC) concentrations (SMD (0.52), (95% CI −0.02 to 1.07), p=0.05). Severe heterogeneity was observed between studies, and no obvious publication bias was observed in included RCTs.ConclusionCollectively, our findings of available RCTs did no show any benefit of resveratrol supplementation on SOD, CAT and GPx except for TAC. Well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm these results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document